Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain (IPD) use in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is still controversial. A survey was designed to investigate surgeons’ use of IPD in PD patients through 23 questions and one clinical vignette. For the clinical scenario, respondents were asked to report their regret of omission and commission regarding the use of IPD elicited on a scale between 0 (no regret) and 100 (maximum regret). The threshold model and a multilevel mixed regression were applied. One hundred three (97.2%) respondents confirmed using at least two IPDs. The median regret due to the omission of IPD was 84 (67–100, IQR). The median regret due to the commission of IPD was 10 (3.5–20, IQR). The CR-POPF probability threshold at which drainage omission was the less regrettable choice was 3% (1–50, IQR). The threshold was lower for those surgeons who performed minimally invasive PD (P = 0.048), adopted late removal (P = 0.002), perceived FRS able to predict the risk (P = 0.006), and IPD able to avoid relaparotomy P = 0.036). Drain management policies after PD remain heterogeneous among surgeons. The regret model suggested that IPD omission could be performed in low-risk patients.

Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an Italian survey / Ricci, Claudio; Pecorelli, Nicolò; Esposito, Alessandro; Capretti, Giovanni; Partelli, Stefano; Butturini, Giovanni; Boggi, Ugo; Cucchetti, Alessandro; Zerbi, Alessandro; Salvia, Roberto; Falconi, Massimo; null, null; Alberici, Laura; Aleotti, Francesca; Alfieri, Sergio; Angrisani, Marco; Anselmo, Alessandro; Bannone, Elisa; Barabino, Matteo; Belfiori, Giulio; Belli, Andrea; Belli, Giulio; Bonatti, Chiara; Borgia, Gianluca; Caccamo, Lucio; Campra, Donata; Caputo, Damiano; Casadei, Riccardo; Cescon, Matteo; Citterio, Davide; Colangelo, Ettore; Colledan, Michele; Coppola, Roberto; Crippa, Stefano; Dall'Olio, Tommaso; De Carlis, Luciano; De Giorgi, Donato; De Luca, Raffaele; Del Vecchio, Antonella; Valle, Raffaele Della; Di Benedetto, Fabrizio; Di Dato, Armando; Di Domenico, Stefano; Di Meo, Giovanni; Di Sebastiano, Pierluigi; Giuseppe, Maria Ettorre; Fogliati, Alessandro; Frena, Antonio; Gavazzi, Francesco; Giacomo, Batignani; Giannotti, Luca; Giuliante, Felice; Grazi, Gian Luca; Grottola, Tommaso; Gruttadauria, Salvatore; Ingaldi, Carlo; Isabella, Frigerio; Izzo, Francesco; La Barba, Giuliano; Langella, Serena; Lionetto, Gabriella; Lombardi, Raffaele; Maganuco, Lorenzo; Maggino, Laura; Malleo, Giuseppe; Manzini, Lorenzo; Marchegiani, Giovanni; Marchetti, Alessio; Marcucci, Stefano; Massani, Marco; Mastrangelo, Laura; Mazzaferro, Vincenzo; Mazzola, Michele; Memeo, Riccardo; Anna, Caterina Milanetto; Mocchegiani, Federico; Moraldi, Luca; Moro, Francesco; Napoli, Niccolò; Nappo, Gennaro; Nardo, Bruno; Carlo, Alberto Pacilio; Paiella, Salvatore; Papis, Davide; Patriti, Alberto; Patrono, Damiano; Prosperi, Enrico; Puglisi, Silvana; Ramera, Marco; Ravaioli, Matteo; Rocca, Aldo; Ruzzente, Andrea; Sacco, Luca; Scialantrone, Grazia; Serenari, Matteo; Tamburrino, Domenico; Tatani, Bruna; Troisi, Roberto; Veneroni, Luigi; Vivarelli, Marco; Zanello, Matteo; Zanus, Giacomo; Caterina, Costanza Zingaretti; Zironda, Andrea. - In: UPDATES IN SURGERY. - ISSN 2038-131X. - ELETTRONICO. - 76:(2024), pp. 923-932. [10.1007/s13304-024-01836-0]

Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an Italian survey

Giacomo, Batignani
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
Grazi, Gian Luca
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
Moraldi, Luca
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
2024

Abstract

Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain (IPD) use in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is still controversial. A survey was designed to investigate surgeons’ use of IPD in PD patients through 23 questions and one clinical vignette. For the clinical scenario, respondents were asked to report their regret of omission and commission regarding the use of IPD elicited on a scale between 0 (no regret) and 100 (maximum regret). The threshold model and a multilevel mixed regression were applied. One hundred three (97.2%) respondents confirmed using at least two IPDs. The median regret due to the omission of IPD was 84 (67–100, IQR). The median regret due to the commission of IPD was 10 (3.5–20, IQR). The CR-POPF probability threshold at which drainage omission was the less regrettable choice was 3% (1–50, IQR). The threshold was lower for those surgeons who performed minimally invasive PD (P = 0.048), adopted late removal (P = 0.002), perceived FRS able to predict the risk (P = 0.006), and IPD able to avoid relaparotomy P = 0.036). Drain management policies after PD remain heterogeneous among surgeons. The regret model suggested that IPD omission could be performed in low-risk patients.
2024
76
923
932
Goal 3: Good health and well-being
Ricci, Claudio; Pecorelli, Nicolò; Esposito, Alessandro; Capretti, Giovanni; Partelli, Stefano; Butturini, Giovanni; Boggi, Ugo; Cucchetti, Alessandro...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
s13304-024-01836-0.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Pdf editoriale (Version of record)
Licenza: Open Access
Dimensione 704.78 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
704.78 kB Adobe PDF

I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificatore per citare o creare un link a questa risorsa: https://hdl.handle.net/2158/1404693
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact